THE NELSON CHURCH COUNCIL.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXX, Issue 181, 3 August 1896, Page 2

THE NELSON CHURCH COUNCIL.

Toihb Enron of "The Evening Mail." Sir, — You have made your readers acquainted with a meeting of a newly formed body calling itself the Nelson Church Council. It appears that the members have been seleoted from the Anglioan, Baptist, Congregational, Presbyterian, and Wesleyan denominations only. Kindly allow me to repudiate representation in a Council of so compromising a auaracter, aud tv deprecate the Baorifiee of principles whioh should guide the Catholic Church in whioh I have bueu taught by the areeds to believe. The statement of objects needs explanation in some partioulars. What, for instance, dots the Couuoil mean by " fraternal intercourse," "the ohurches," and "the ohuroh?" Were a number of people to oombiue into a " Unitarian Church,' woula the Council regard their " separate organisation " as a ohuroh, and .seek uuder the first object "to promote fraternal feeling and intercourse" in referenoe to it 1 Whon Mr H, Prioe Hughes is reported in the " Methodist Times " of September ill, 1893, to have said "If I were to ask you for your definition of ' the Ohuroh,' we should have ub many definitions as there are people here," the inquiry is not without excuse. An endeavour, whioh met with approval, was made by the President to oover the evils of disunion under the euphemism of I' a variety of organisation," and accordingly tbe declaration that ' variety of organisation oomos from God," was made as an apology for the division of Christendom. It was maintained thai. " separate organisations may be compared with the advantages of separate families." But tbe comparison oannot apply to the family or "household of God." Says an ex-Wes-leyan minister : " Just as tbe Churoh, the Sooiety oreated and governed by God, isHis are not bis families. We were made ohildfamily, bo the societies created by man ren of God by baptism, and members of the ' household of God ' when we were by baptism admitted into the Church, but were made neither the one nor the other, if we joined tbe Church Army, or the Biptist or Wesleyan Sooiety. God has one family, not two hundred separate and independent families." It was also urged that " separate organisations enforce a variety of views," But wh.t recommendation is this ? Ib it the great business of Christianity to multiply views ? The faot is, the "Nelson Ohuroh Couuoil" is our old friend the Evangelioal Alliance" under a new name: This will appear fiom the following judgment pronounced upon the latter by a greot teaoher: — " Its perils and disadvantages infinitely outweigh all that can be said io its favour. It begins by despairing of agreement and unity, even in matters which its own axioms oonfess to be matters of indifference antl purely secondary interest, lij the fatal concession that men no longer ought to try and oombino in one broad polity, it gives the reinß over to self-will. It leaves the spirit of secession and of (what St. Paul calls; dichostasia, absolutely without rebuke. And so, encouraging everyone to stand upon his rights instead of bending to I his duties, it endeavours to form a confederation of peace and harmony with unlimited interior rights of private war." A member of the Council must acknowledge all religious denominations to be on an equality, and that therefore there is no neoessity to undo the work of division. "What urgent reason is there," it has been asked, " for reunion if tbe Church of Ohrist is an invisible oommunion and fel. lowship, or is composed of rival ohurches, and one churoh is ss Rood as another?;' I Yours, eto., A Churchman.